Talk:Peter Knight (murderer)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Quality of referencing
editReferencing needs a bit of work. For example, out of the four citations, the only one giving the contents of his handwritten note is a web site that endorses the killing of abortion-related workers (not quite my idea of a reliable source). Andjam 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
One person's activist...
editI was mildly surprised to see the word "activist" used. However, googling indicates that main stream media has used the word itself, eg Parole appeal rejected for anti-abortion activist. Andjam 23:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit naff to describe this guy as an "activist". Murderer would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.113.164 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Anti-abortion violence
editIP editor; can you please provide a more detailed explanation of why you are removing the category "Anti-abortion violence". Peter James Knight was an anti-abortion activist who committed a violent murder. How is this category not appropriate? I don't understand what you are trying to say regarding terrorism implication in your edit summary. I don't see how whether this was an act terrorism or not has any relevance to whether or not it is considered anti-abortion violence. Freikorp (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Anti-abortion and Abortion-rights vs Pro-life and Pro-choice
editThe AP recommends using the terms 'anti-abortion' and 'abortion rights' to describe sides of the Abortion debate without using political framing techniques. There is some contention with these terms, with anti-abortion side of the debate not wanting to be labelled as 'anti'. See United States pro-life movement#Controversies over terminology
Currently there are 4 articles:
- Anti-abortion movements
- United States pro-life movement
- Abortion-rights movements
- United States pro-choice movement
It seems that for articles referring to the United States, the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' terms are preferred, while international discussion more commonly uses the terms 'anti-abortion' and 'abortion rights'.
I've changed a link from pro-life to Anti-abortion movements as I think this reflects the AP terminology, which I think is correct for an article about Australia. If this is opposed, please discuss this on the talk page, don't just get into an edit war. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are weaselly bunny-hugging terms designed to be difficult to disagree with. "Abortion rights" is a little weaselly, because I figure if it's good enough to describe one side as anti-, then it should be good enough to describe the other simply as pro-. Naming one side as a "-rights" movement immediately positions your opponents as oppressors. But it is an improvement, and if that's the current state of play on Wiki then I guess it will stay that way. Abortion as a topic is generally a hornets nest I don't have the stomach for rocking.-- Aronzak (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)